I feel guilty just having read the question

October 11, 2006 1:26 PM

This seems barely different from the earlier version that was deleted.
posted by mzurer to etiquette/policy at 1:26 PM (25 comments total)

I don't really buy the argument posited before that questions about other emotional states are allowed - If the question was phrased as "What can be done to elicit happiness in strangers" without any qualifiers, it would still be chatfilter. In questions about flirting the core problem is understood to be that the questioner wants to get laid, that's why it doesn't need to be explicitly stated. While it is possible there is a specific problem to be solved in this case, the questioner continues to refer to that problem in vagaries, either out of embarrassment or the feeling that he would be attacked for doing something unethical. Tough luck, I say - Get specific and take your licks, or take it to another venue where hypotheticals are not against the rules.
posted by mzurer at 1:27 PM on October 11, 2006

Seconded.
posted by agregoli at 1:30 PM on October 11, 2006

The person raised a huge stink when we deleted it last time and apparently took the "repost it again, but with some backstory why and background info" advice and reposted it. I'll let it stand, but delete their future hypothetical dumb non-questions.
posted by mathowie at 1:31 PM on October 11, 2006

Your call, Matt.

It just feels like he did the AskMe equivalent of adding a bunch of Wikipedia links.

Why this bothers me enough to post will be the subject of a future AskMe.
posted by mzurer at 1:34 PM on October 11, 2006

But Matt, it doesn't say why.
posted by dame at 1:55 PM on October 11, 2006

He or she cared enough to still be interested in posting after waiting a week, and even took advice from other members on how to rephrase it. It's still obtuse but some effort has been made; I think another deletion would have been a bit harsh.
posted by teleskiving at 2:07 PM on October 11, 2006 [2 favorites]

In an environment where questions are routinely invalidated not because they are inherently bad questions, but simply because they don't quite fit into a rather limited format, it should hardly be surprising when otherwise simple questions begin to mutate into tortured, grotesque parodies of the ideal. Hypothetically.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:52 PM on October 11, 2006

There's not much difference, but the new question has this: "Have researchers studied what things make people feel guilty?" A good answer should refer to specific scholarly sources on guilt and why people feel it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:54 PM on October 11, 2006

It's a bit of a strange question, no matter how you slice it.
posted by DenOfSizer at 2:58 PM on October 11, 2006

*giggle* although i prefered it without the extra gumpf. twas more fun.
posted by lemonfridge at 3:51 PM on October 11, 2006

they are not part of the problem I seek to solve.

So why not say what the problem is you are trying to solve instead of making everyone second-guess what the context is? If there is an actual reason for asking the question other than idle curiosity, why not state it up-front. The way the question is phrased, it results in people stabbing in the dark with their information-swords hoping to stumble across something the asker can use. Which, of course, is charitable of them, but not particularly useful.
posted by dg at 3:52 PM on October 11, 2006

While it is possible there is a specific problem to be solved in this case, the questioner continues to refer to that problem in vagaries, either out of embarrassment or the feeling that he would be attacked for doing something unethical. Tough luck, I say - Get specific and take your licks, or take it to another venue where hypotheticals are not against the rules.

I don't know how I could have made it any more clear that I want learn how to manipulate strangers using guilt as leverage.
posted by the giant pill at 6:13 PM on October 11, 2006

Not to be snarky, but why couldn't you have just said "I want to manipulate strangers using guilt as leverage. How do I make strangers feel guilty?"
posted by Not in my backyard at 7:13 PM on October 11, 2006

but why couldn't you have just said ...

why, we'd have to stop and think that he might not be a very nice guy!
posted by sergeant sandwich at 7:26 PM on October 11, 2006

why, we'd have to stop and think that he might not be a very nice guy!

You forgot this one.
posted by the giant pill at 7:31 PM on October 11, 2006

Not to be snarky, but why couldn't you have just said...

I thought that was pretty obvious from the tags and the way the question was phrased.
posted by the giant pill at 7:32 PM on October 11, 2006

ditto what mathowie said.
posted by jessamyn at 7:38 PM on October 11, 2006

I don't know how I could have made it any more clear that I want learn how to manipulate strangers using guilt as leverage.

Ah, yes, best of the web. and this is allowed to stand? It seems odd that it would be as it's pretty clear that the original poster wants to do some sort of harm to others, even if it is only mental. and it gets to stay 'cause they raised a huge stink?

Sounds to me like the GP already knows how to manipulate strangers...
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:40 PM on October 11, 2006

"why, we'd have to stop and think that he might not be a very nice guy!

You forgot this one."

If by "forgot" you meant "made it the first link", then yeah, he forgot it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:55 PM on October 11, 2006

Just wanted to add some weight to supporting this question. Sure, it might not be a great question, but not all questions on AskMe are. I'd argue it's better than many.. such as the recent "I know I'm leaving, but when should they know?"
posted by wackybrit at 8:09 PM on October 11, 2006

the giant twat
posted by nanojath at 9:09 PM on October 11, 2006

Expand body showing dominant?
posted by klangklangston at 11:22 PM on October 11, 2006

The person raised a huge stink when we deleted it last time and apparently took the "repost it again, but with some backstory why and background info" advice and reposted it. I'll let it stand, but delete their future hypothetical dumb non-questions.

Would you say he's attempting to manipulate you using guilt?
posted by COBRA! at 5:46 AM on October 12, 2006 [2 favorites]

FWIW, it doesn't look like he's getting answers that would apply to all (or even most) strangers. Seems like a pointless exercise to me.
posted by Robert Angelo at 5:56 AM on October 12, 2006

I was going to point that out too, but thought I'd get yelled at.
posted by misanthropicsarah at 8:44 AM on October 12, 2006